# TritlityA 

# Cl>nsultants RECEIVED November 13,2007 

# I**~O~** .•

# ~'4!~ Mr. Phillip Fielder 

# AIR OUALITY Engineering Supervisor - Air Quality Division Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 707 N. Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73101 RE: Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Analysis Revised CALPUFF Results Lafarge Tulsa Plant Dear 

## Mr. Fielder: On September 20, 2007, the Oklahoma DEQ sent a letter to Lafarge Building Materials ,(Lafarge) indicating certain inconsistencies between the Kiln No.2 PM IO 

### emission data used in the Tulsa Plant's BART Modeling Analysis and the plant's Emission Inventory (EI). The original BART Modeling Analysis, submitted on November 30, 2006, listed a PM IO 

### emission rate from Kiln No. 2 of 17.14Iblhr. Upon review, Trinity determined that the PM IO 

### emission rate for Kiln No.2 indicated in the plant's EI (21.94 lblhr) is representative ofthe maximum hourly PM IO 

### emission rate, and that this value should have been used in the BART Modeling Analysis. As a result, Trinity has updated the CALPUFF model runs to include the revised PM IO 

### emission rate. As described below, all other aspects of the CALPUFF model, including PM IO 

### speciation profile, stack parameters, and CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST input parameters remain unchanged from the original modeling report submitted on November 29,2006. As summarized at the end of this letter, the Lafarge Tulsa Plant's visibility impact (based on the 

## 98 th 

### percentile change in deciview [ddv]) on its four neighboring Class I areas increase marginally, but remains below BART exemption levels. SOURCE 

### EMISSIONS A summary ofmaxirnum 24-hr emission rates for each of the BART-eligible units at the Tulsa Plant is summarized below. Note that with the exception of the PM IO 

### emission rate for EP 15 (Kiln No.2), the values presented in this table do not differ from those included in the original modeling report.

120 East Sheridan, Suite 205, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104 

### V,SA A Offices nationwide (405) 228-3292 A Fax (405) 228-3293 A www.trinityconsultants.com

### Mr. Phillip Fielder Page 2 of 6 November l3, 2007 TABLE 

## 1. MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGE EMISSION RATES 

### Unit ID 

### NO x 

### PM lO 

### S02 

### IbS/hr Ibs/hr Ibs/hr EP04 0.089 3.857 0.001 EP05 

# -­ 0.429 

## -­ EP13 

# -­ 0.557 

# -­ EPI5 576.00 21.94 960.00 EP24 

## -­ 3.402 

## -­ EP26 

# -­ 0.429 

## -­ EP25 

## -­ 0.429 

## -­ EP17 

# -­ 4.607 

# -­ EP27 

# -­ 0.375 

# -­ EP28 

# -­ 0.321 

# -­ As in the original submittal, speciated PM w 

### emissions from the kiln are based upon FLM guidance for dry-bottom cement kilns operating with fabric filters. l 

### A speciation profile is presented below. TABLE 2. CEMENT KILN PM 10 

### SPECIATION PROFILE 

## Particulate Matter Wt. Fraction Species PM Coarse 6.70% PM Fine (Fine Soil) 7.70% Elemental Carbon 0.00% Sulfates (inorganic condensable PM) 75.30% Secondary Organic Aerosols (organic condensable PM) 10.30% 

### Total 100% 

### A summary of PM JO 

### emissions from Kiln No.2 is presented below. TABLE 

### 3. KILN SPECIATED PM 10 

### EMISSIONS 

### Unit ID PM 

### (coarse) Ibs/hr PM 

### (fine) Ibslhr S04 

### Ibslhr SOA 

### Ibs/hr EC Ibs/hr EP04 1.470 1.690 16.52 2.260 

# -­

1 

### http://www2.nature.nps.gov/airlPermitsJect/ectCementKiln.cfin

### Mr. Phillip Fielder Page 3 of 6 November 13,2007 

## MODEL RESULTS A summary of the top 25 visibility-impairing days at each of the relevant Class I areas over the modeled 2001-03 period is summarized in Tables 4 through 7 below. Shaded values indicate visibility impacts that exceed the 0.5 L\dv threshold for contribution to visibility impairment. As seen in these tables, the 98 th 

### percentile values indicate that the Tulsa Plant's contribution to visibility impairment is still below the 0.5 ddv threshold at each of the neighboring Class I areas. These results indicate that the Tulsa Plant therefore qualifies for exemption from BART. TABLE 

### 4. VISIBLITY IMPACT MODEL RESULTS FROM CANEY CREEK 

### 2001-03 

## Rank Modeled Visibility Impact (L\dv) Background Extinction by Species (%) 

## Year Day 

# so OC EC PMC PMF 31.87 67.52**_~m'_'''·'_'''_** 4 64.58 35.11

_____ m __ 

## g:.!??.........................Q.:.1.4...... -,-.- ..**:=.::..::~:::.---::··:** .. 

### ·····-1 60.28 39.27

___ '_'M 

### 6 64 35.75 

### 7 ··_-_··_·_-_·····_················_·1---....::::::...:..::...--1 33.66 65.95 

### =-=--_-=:..::.::..._ ..

## .9_. 2 _ 1

_

.... ___ 

## g. __ .__ ....9.:9_ 3_ .........

## _.2:_ 15 

### ._+ ... ;==_:::... '----_.::-.:::....._1

...____**~8** __ ._._. __...__.. I._...•. _...::.:::::.::..:....

__ I

__??_·1_4 ___ Z;!;_24

___....__**0.3_7............g___..Q.:.O_6_._0_.1~_.+_;::.:::."-:........._::::.:::..:_** .. 1 

### 9 49.06 50.52 0.21 0 0.05 0.16 2002 298 -----·-·-··--··-·" ..**-!-----'---~'"······---I·--·** .. -------··-··-- .. ­ .... ­ ............ ".---- .. ­ .... ­ ....... --.---.- .... -.­ _ ... ­ .. -._....... -­ 45.78 53.73 0.28 0 0.02 0.19 2003 5 I------- .. ---- .. --- .. ­ ..--!------"c...;..::;..;;;... ...... ·.. ·---!·--",,----·-"- .... ··-.--------- .. - .. ---.-".- ..... - ..**-----~-** ... -.-- - ....... -.- .... -- ...... ­ ... -. 

### 11 60.99 38.59 0.22 0 0.04 0.17 I

_______·· .. __ .. ___ .... _·
__

### +·

__.._--'c...;..::;..;c,_·

__**~!·** __ .... __ ·
________ .---------- ... __ . ____ ._..... _._ 2.0.01 286


## -- .. ..**-~-~,-""~""--** .. ,



### _____ 1_2

....__..__ . _____+_.

___ .---=-:..;..;...;'---

____ !_.•.**~1_.1_1** ____**._6~2._48**____ 0._2?._.. __ 0_.

__**JL9j_~** 0.15 20.02 34.0

,, __ ... ____**,.'''~'''''** ... .... _fi ..**~** 

### l3 23.12 76.52 .0.2**---···-·-~-·---** 

### .. ··+-·-·---=-:..:.:...:=-----·t .. -·,,----- ...... ·--------..:.:=----=-----.-::::.:..:;....C--.-.:::..:...:.;=--t .. ..::.::.::":..-·· .... -.::.......-I 

## a .0.04 0.12 43.51 .0.31 

## a .0 . .04 .0.28 26.01 .0.21 

## a 0 . .05 .0.23 67.94 .0.36 

## a 0.06 0.3 59.05 0.18 

## a 0.01 .0.17 72.49 0.4 

## a 0.08 0.31 40.12 0.15 0 0.01 0.09 69.44 0.32 0 0.1 0.31 51.89 0.34 0 0.04 0.29 46.85 0.2 

## a 0.04

.03 0.41 

## a 24 .0.122 34.17 64.96 0.47 

## a 25 0.102 65.05 34.63 0.16 

## a

### Mr. Phillip Fielder - Page 4 of 6 November 13, 2007 TABLE 

### 5. VISIBLITY IMPACT MODEL RESULTS FROM HERCULES-GLADES 

### 2001-03

Peak 2

## Rank

3
7 

## Modeled Visibility Impact (Adv) 0.39 0.239 0.234 0.194 

## Background Extinction by Species (%) 

## Year Day OC EC PMC PMF 67.01 0.4 0 0.05 0.29 2001 362**"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''-,--~''''''~"** ''''''''''" ...................................................................................................... , .. , ... , ....**~..** .. .............. ,,"'_..... , ... , 67.74 0.32 0 0.03 0.27 2003 351

............................................. «<<<< ............ "',., """""'" """""--_ .... ", ......... ,,'''''', ••••••••• 14.04 0.18 0 0.02 0.16 2003 256

. ''',."" .. ,.".", .. ".,............... """"'--, ..

### _ ...... , ... ,"""""" ............. , 65.36 0.31 0 0.05 0.28 2002 12 "", ..................................... " '"'''''''''".,,''''''''''' "' .. """"" ............. , ...**"'."""~--"'** .. """. 33.36 0.13 0 0.01 0.13 2002 30 """""""""""''''''''" ....................... .... «<-­ 52.93 0.22 0 0.04 0.21 2001 6 0.154 .m... . .........**:!~._57_** ...... ............:5:.:::3.:.::.9 ..8" ...mmm.._........: 0 ::::.

2 ::.: 3 :.......-

____ 

### 8 0.15 42.31 57.27 0.2 I .. _._ ..... m ...... m

.. __ . __ ...................._ .......... __ '._m.. m ........ m .... m

...................................................... ______ ..................._ ......__.... ... 

### 9 

## QcJ4? ...........................**mmm~·;..::.35::....-_"-'35=·~.?** ............_ ..... 

## .9 ..

## :.:!L........ __ Q........ 

### 10 0.141 0

... _''''''''''''''_'''''''''''''

____ .. _,_ .. '" .. m ..... """" .......................... _._ .. _ ..... __ """"""" ... 

### 11 0.131 0 """""""'-,--""'-,---,---,-"" 73.47 26.21 0.16 29.21 69.91 0.47 5 4.84 44.69 0.26 0 0.02 0.19 2001 314

••••••••••••••••••

__ •

_____ ............................... m ...................... "" ............**".,.~** .. ''''''''''

__ '''''''''''_ 0.13 2001 22 4.:..::.0=.2:......7

__5::..;:9c:..::.3:..:.9............._ . 

## .9 ..

## :.?.. ___Q_ ..... . 0.01
...........................

# __ ....... """", .... _"" .... 2003 82 2001 32
.............

# __ .. 

### - ......

## _-_ ......... 

### ­ 2003 296 " ......

# __ .......

# __ ....

### _ .... 

### ­ 2002 332 """"",. 

### ..

# _ ...

### _""."._­

2001 147 ..:::...51.:..:...1;,::.8

__ 4:.;:8=.2. 0.28 0 0.06 0.28 

### 12 0.127 

### 13 0.121 

### 14 0.12 

### 17 0.101 .............................. " .......................... " 0.04 0.26 0.06 0.37 0.02 0.22

83.95 15.38 0.33 

## o 0.06 0.28 0 0.02 0.23 1_ ................. _ .. __ 

### 1 '-C 

### 8 .._

.....................__... _l

__--"0c:..;.1:..;;.0...:...1

__+_..::.;53:.:....·4:I. ........__ 4_6.Q1 .........._..::..0.=25:::....-_-=-_--=-=_........::.:==--I 

### 19 0.087 ._----_." ...... ,.,_..... 

### - -_..

# _--_ ..

### _.- 

### 20 0.082

.. _ .. _. __ ._.m ............... _. ___ .... -- .. - ...... - ............... -- .......... f.. - ..**=:.~:** ..**7-.---=:::-=---~:..:.:=.::.---=---** 

### 21



### __ ..Q,Q?_._...... _.m .......... m

__ ........ _......::...:c.:..:...:: __ 

### 98th Percentile 0.066 94.18 0.08 0.27 

### 25 0.062 0.04 0.18 0.061 0.03 0.16

..**-.--~** 2003 229 2001 11 2001 335

### Mr. Phillip Fielder - Page 5 of 6 November 13, 2007 TABLE 

### 6. VISIBLITY IMPACT MODEL RESULTS FROM UPPER BUFFALO 

### 2001-03 

## Rank Modeled Background Extinction by Species (%) 

## Year Day

## • Mr. Phillip Fielder - Page 6 of 6 November 13, 2007
TABLE 

### 7. VISIBLITY IMPACT MODEL RESULTS FROM WICHITA MOUNTAINS 

### 2001-03 Rank Modeled Background Extinction by Species (%) Year Day OC EC PMC PMF 0.19 0.03 0.15 2001 309**!>.~I:l.~~~:I.l.!..~verage** 

# ° 2 0.255 34.03 65.3 0.27 2002 306 """""""""""" ........................................ """""" .... """."""- .......... -1---............;;;..;.;;;;..;....:..........--.- .. -- ......... - .. _-- 0.,;;;..;33'------'0'- ................ 

## Q:.!??. 3 0.24 

# ° 0.03 0.18 

# ° 0.05 0.15 0.228 0.223 46.36 0.39 0_.2J . 

### g.. 0.05'-------'°::,:..1;..;;;8:....... 1 ........::::;::;::...:

__.........__ 7.:_ ... 1 0.45 0 0.14 ·
______•

___ ......_·_·_·_.. ·_ .. _--=-.:..=._1_.. ..::.::..::..:....· .. ·.. ........::..:..:...._"""1 0.04 

## o 0.02

..........

### _---- 0.28 0.251 43.18 56.04 0,;..::..3;-;.....9

__ 0;-;..... ..__ o_.o_7 

## ._g:12

__ 

## 20_°3. ......... _43_... .. ._ ... _ ••_ ...... _ ............_ ...................................**--.-........;;;c~'---_---1_.:..::.;.c'""'--_.;;..;;;.;:..::...;...** 

### 4 0.251 56.49 43.05 

### 5 0.242 21.19 

### 6 7 

### 8



# ___........... ? ....................................t-- ............ --:::.:...:..c=----i-.....:=:..;;;.;;;..--'3::...;1,.:.c.1..:;:.8_--=.;. 

### 10 43.56 55.68 

# .JL

____._. f•.

_ ..................... _ .....:c

.. : ... :.c •.7............................. __ i __ 4

_

4 

### J.. .""" ........_ ..**§.~i~** 

## __ 12 0.16 79.03 19.95



### - ..... -.- ....**------r--~::..:..;** 

### 13 58.97 40.66

....... --- ...... ··· ...... • ............ · ...... f-·_·· .. - .... ·---=c:..=:.......--i 

### 14 f ..................................::.: .•:.. ::.::: ......... -........... i ...........**~?:.~.?** 

## ....... - 56.64 

### 15 0.139 91.74 7.87 0.18 0 0.04 0.17 2002 149

•••••••

__ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , • ., ••• ", ......... 'M "_,_m .. ",,,,,
,,,,,,,,,, .. _ ....... _........... .. ........ HH

____ ........................... """""""""."" .. ",,,,, .. ,, .. _ ........... _ .............**~_~"""""_** 

### 16 26.36 72.84 0.4 0 0.08 0.33 2001 25 ··-······-·· .. ····f· .. ·..:-.. - .... ·•••.. ·-;;.:..·: .. c .... :........._........ ·.. ·i ......... - .... -- .. -.----.-- ............. -.----................ ... - ........ -- .... -.-­ _--'1...:..7

____ f

____-=-:..:..=-"-

__ ..__ .i

__ 8_5

.. ___ 14_.0_5

___ 0_.2_7 .... _ ..... 

## ..!! ........ _0_.0_6 ............... .9.:.22

___ .?_00_3 .. """

__ 27_9._ 

### 18 0.128 61.33 38.28 0.19 0 0.05 0.15 2002 156
.........__ .....

# __ ....... . 

### _--**~'h'M"".""~** .. __ ................................................**,"""'"''---.~,,-** 

### .. " ......................... 

### 19 0.122 50.31 49.06 0.32 0 0.06 0.25 2002 357

_ ...... ",,"" ...... m_ ............................ _**,~** .. , ..... ,-"-., .... ..**,,,.~,,** ....... ................ 

### 20 0.122 94.29 4.69 0.5 0 0.09 0.43 

# --- ..**-~~,** 

### 21 0.121 80.34 19.18 0.24 0 0.04 0.21 

### 98th Percentile 0.121 51.26 48.25 0.25 0 0.02 0.21 2001 78 

### 23 0.112 2.77 0.42 0 0,07 0.38 2003 223 

### 24 0.107 91.33 7.72 0.47 0 0.09 0.39 2001 225 

### 25 0.103 62.66 36.7 0.31 0 0.07 0.26 2003 305 

### A copy of model input and output files (matching the same set of data provided in the original submittal) is included in the attached DVD. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact either Eugene Chen or myself at (405) 228-3292. Sincerely, 

## TRINITY CONSULTANTS

Vern Choquette Principal Consultant